Well, it's not a totally new galaxy–that's for sure. Plus, VITTI said they were re-making all assests. That doesnt mean that everything is different and totally new-never-before-seen, it just means they using new assets to make returning…anything (EG, the swingshot). Now, Ratchet's wrench may look similar, but I'm sure they still rebuilt it.
You do realise I was talking about Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction, not the PS4 remake of R&C1.
Oh, I see now. But Big Al was at the very least MENTIONED in the game.
Yes, but it was such a small mention that it would have went straight past all people playing the series for the first time.
Yes, but it was such a small mention that it would have went straight past all people playing the series for the first time.
I hate that.
They constantly mention the old characters but they don't bring them back.
I think some of the worst offenders were the QForce and the flashlight in ItN that was built by Big Al…
They constantly mention the old characters but they don't bring them back.
Yeah, I'm gonna agree on that. I always that that at some point they were gonna bring them back in the game… but then All4One happened.
They constantly mention the old characters but they don't bring them back.
Yeah, I'm gonna agree on that. I always that that at some point they were gonna bring them back in the game… but then All4One happened.
I didn't mind A4O not bringing many old characters back. It wasn't until FFA constantly referred to the "Q-Force" as being only Qwark, Ratchet and Clank that I got annoyed; what about the rest of the Q-Force? There was a whole team of Eight back in R&C3!
I didn't mean A4O specificly. Just the route IG decided to take after it.
I think there is a reason why IG created FFA. Because if they make a really great game after A4O, it would be hard to make another game which is equally good or better.
Throughout the Future Saga they continued to raise the bar. It was a shame to see they went into a different direction, which was a few steps back from the Future Saga. Their reasons? Experimenting I guess. But the experiment didn't stop after A4O it continued well into Nexus. Although Nexus was a few steps back up again.
Yeah, in some ways, All 4 One was a better quality game than ITN, but since ITN followed the "classic style gameplay," people liked it more.
Yeah, in some ways, All 4 One was a better quality game than ITN, but since ITN followed the "classic style gameplay," people liked it more.
Not really.
ItN is objectively a better designed game than A4O.
Well, more time was spent on A4O, and it was pretty expansive. ITN did improve on this, but all 4 one always seemed to have a higher attention to detail. Plus, it ran at a seemingly stable 30fps, with little or no sound lag, and the soundtrack was better in that game (IMO). ITN's background's just seemed unfinished at times (silox, igliak).
Well, more time was spent on A4O, and it was pretty expansive. ITN did improve on this, but all 4 one always seemed to have a higher attention to detail. Plus, it ran at a seemingly stable 30fps, with little or no sound lag, and the soundtrack was better in that game (IMO). ITN's background's just seemed unfinished at times (silox, igliak).
Graphics don't make up for gameplay.
When it comes to gameplay design, ItN is a much better game.
I agree. I'm just saying that All 4 One had a better design for it's levels (which is to be expected).
I thought ItN was pretty impressive on a visual-level too though; granted, it doesn't quite have the utterly stunning vistas from A4O, but that's mainly because A4O was built to have fixed camera angles; so they could afford to put more effort into what you would see, whereas ItN has many large and more open levels, so the graphics had to compensate. But given the gameplay sacrifice that A4O had to make in order to look as good as it does really isn't worth the trade-off…
